00:0400:04, 26 April 2024diffhist−245
Modern monetary theory
Undid revision
1220724980 by
JGS952 (
talk)Still problems; I haven't seen anywhere in the sources that "positive economic outcomes can be achieved while running budget **surpluses**"; -- "taxes on everyone" was added by me because taxes on billionaires only will not reduce inflation (this is almost a quote from one of the key MMT purveyors) and MMT is almost considered
WP:FRINGE, so the "controversial" is true.Tag: Undo
01:0201:02, 25 April 2024diffhist−1,217
Effects of economic inequality
Reverted poor summary of the sources; one study on South Africa cannot be generalized to all countries. The second source could be used to talk about DEPRESSION, but again cannot be generalized to ALL mental health issues.currentTag: Undo
00:5600:56, 25 April 2024diffhist−4,721
Modern monetary theory
Undid revision
1220552589 by
JGS952 (
talk)Reverted UNSOURCED, good faith
WP:GF edits. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research. Please see:
WP:OR. All statements must be sourced from Reliable Sources
WP:RS - In addition, much of those changes made the article more confusing to layperson readers.Tag: Undo
00:4400:44, 25 April 2024diffhist+38
Internalized Ableism
Quite a bit (multiple sections) look like
WP:OR because the titles of the sources seem to not be related directly to this subject: for example: an article on "Oppression" as a source but not necessarily a tie to "Internalized ableism", that looks like
WP:SYNTH. Quotes from sources to support the statements might make this clear whether this is Original Research or not.
22:5622:56, 24 April 2024diffhist+9
Paul Marx (monk)
"pro-life" --> "anti-abortion" : more descriptive and accurate terminology as standardly used throughout Wikipedia - Please see
Talk:Anti-abortion movements/FAQ Q: "Should this article's title be pro-life movement?" A: No. Wikipedia does not use euphemisms. The term "pro-life" is a branding or marketing device and does not reflect the sole focus of the movement, which is opposition to abortion. The fact that the two sides officially call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is not a reasocurrentTag: Undo
22:5522:55, 24 April 2024diffhist−19
Steven W. Mosher
"pro-life" --> "anti-abortion" : more descriptive and accurate terminology as standardly used throughout Wikipedia - Please see
Talk:Anti-abortion movements/FAQ Q: "Should this article's title be pro-life movement?" A: No. Wikipedia does not use euphemisms. ---UNLESS there are sources indicating that this person follows the
consistent life ethic, in which case pro-life would be more applicable, but I don't think that is the case here.currentTag: Undo
22:3022:30, 24 April 2024diffhist+14
Portola Valley, California
Undid revision
1220545089 by
Cristiano Tomás (
talk)There have been no POLICY based arguments whatsoever opposing this; all "arguments" on the Talk page (including your "arguments" earlier) have simply been
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - "I don't like it" arguments have ZERO weight towards consensus. When Reliable Sources call out a town's zoning policies as segregationist, that is valid content.Tags: UndoReverted
01:4901:49, 24 April 2024diffhist−5,372
Equality of outcome
Undid revision
1220065334 by
Ale Kur (
talk)Reverted poorly sourced, good faith
WP:GF edits. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research. Please see:
WP:OR. All statements must be sourced from Reliable Sources
WP:RS - It is unclear whether any of those large paragraphs can be attributed to the two sources.currentTag: Undo
00:0400:04, 26 April 2024diffhist−245
Modern monetary theory
Undid revision
1220724980 by
JGS952 (
talk)Still problems; I haven't seen anywhere in the sources that "positive economic outcomes can be achieved while running budget **surpluses**"; -- "taxes on everyone" was added by me because taxes on billionaires only will not reduce inflation (this is almost a quote from one of the key MMT purveyors) and MMT is almost considered
WP:FRINGE, so the "controversial" is true.Tag: Undo
01:0201:02, 25 April 2024diffhist−1,217
Effects of economic inequality
Reverted poor summary of the sources; one study on South Africa cannot be generalized to all countries. The second source could be used to talk about DEPRESSION, but again cannot be generalized to ALL mental health issues.currentTag: Undo
00:5600:56, 25 April 2024diffhist−4,721
Modern monetary theory
Undid revision
1220552589 by
JGS952 (
talk)Reverted UNSOURCED, good faith
WP:GF edits. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research. Please see:
WP:OR. All statements must be sourced from Reliable Sources
WP:RS - In addition, much of those changes made the article more confusing to layperson readers.Tag: Undo
00:4400:44, 25 April 2024diffhist+38
Internalized Ableism
Quite a bit (multiple sections) look like
WP:OR because the titles of the sources seem to not be related directly to this subject: for example: an article on "Oppression" as a source but not necessarily a tie to "Internalized ableism", that looks like
WP:SYNTH. Quotes from sources to support the statements might make this clear whether this is Original Research or not.
22:5622:56, 24 April 2024diffhist+9
Paul Marx (monk)
"pro-life" --> "anti-abortion" : more descriptive and accurate terminology as standardly used throughout Wikipedia - Please see
Talk:Anti-abortion movements/FAQ Q: "Should this article's title be pro-life movement?" A: No. Wikipedia does not use euphemisms. The term "pro-life" is a branding or marketing device and does not reflect the sole focus of the movement, which is opposition to abortion. The fact that the two sides officially call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is not a reasocurrentTag: Undo
22:5522:55, 24 April 2024diffhist−19
Steven W. Mosher
"pro-life" --> "anti-abortion" : more descriptive and accurate terminology as standardly used throughout Wikipedia - Please see
Talk:Anti-abortion movements/FAQ Q: "Should this article's title be pro-life movement?" A: No. Wikipedia does not use euphemisms. ---UNLESS there are sources indicating that this person follows the
consistent life ethic, in which case pro-life would be more applicable, but I don't think that is the case here.currentTag: Undo
22:3022:30, 24 April 2024diffhist+14
Portola Valley, California
Undid revision
1220545089 by
Cristiano Tomás (
talk)There have been no POLICY based arguments whatsoever opposing this; all "arguments" on the Talk page (including your "arguments" earlier) have simply been
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - "I don't like it" arguments have ZERO weight towards consensus. When Reliable Sources call out a town's zoning policies as segregationist, that is valid content.Tags: UndoReverted
01:4901:49, 24 April 2024diffhist−5,372
Equality of outcome
Undid revision
1220065334 by
Ale Kur (
talk)Reverted poorly sourced, good faith
WP:GF edits. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research. Please see:
WP:OR. All statements must be sourced from Reliable Sources
WP:RS - It is unclear whether any of those large paragraphs can be attributed to the two sources.currentTag: Undo